I was very intrigued by the data that came out of the informal poll of wishlist lenses for 2011, and decided to compile the data to see if anything remotely meaningful emerges from it. yes, I realize it's nowhere near a scientific study, for so many reasons ... but at the same time, that doesn't neccessarily mean it's an utterly useless group of data.

at the very least, we can discern the inclinations of the people who frequent Canon Rumors, which is a surprisingly broad demographic (I believe) in terms of age, shooting style, profession, purchasing power, brand loyalty, etc. I've attached the data gathered from the "your lenses wishlist for 2011" thread, both in its entirely raw format, as well as grouped by similar type, and finally as a list sorted by quantity.

please note, all lenses are implied as being "USM" (true USM). we're already a decade in to the 21st century, there's no reason for Canon to be making anything with dingy little micromotor USM.

inferences from the data:

1. EF vs. EF-S

It's clear to see why Canon spends far more effort in designing EF lenses. out of 113 votes for lens requests, only 14 were for APS-C only lenses. that's a meager 12%, and I do think this statistic is telling. the people who are going to be puchasing and owning multiple lenses tend to be those who take photography seriously. if you're taking your photography seriously, you're likely to want to invest in better gear (quality over quantity). if you want the best quality, it looks like people still go to the EF lineup for it.

2. L glass

By comparison, 71 requests were for what would presumably be designated "L" glass, a huge 63%. Why would Canon be investing major effort in low-margin EF-S glass if they can be selling 5 times as much of the big expensive red-ringed stuff? I do believe this number is skewed somewhat by the type of people that frequent Canon Rumors, if you look at the signature lines of the people who post most often, it's clear that overall, "we" are not the people who are looking for their first non-kit lens. But from what I have seen of many first-time "what should I buy" posters on the site, they are very often considering, or purchasing, a 24-70 L or a 24-105 f/4 L IS as their step-up lens (a.k.a. gateway drug). even if L glass sells on a 1:1 ratio against EF-S lenses in the real world, I think that's reason enough for Canon to churn out L glass -- feel free to correct me (and there may be no way to prove this) but I believe Canon makes a much better ROI number off a 400mm f/2.8 L IS than off of an EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS

3. Primes vs. Zooms

Surprisingly, despite the fact that two of the most-wanted lenses on this list are zooms (guess which ones, it's pretty obvious), primes accounted for 69 votes (61%). again, I think this is influenced by the fact that the purchasing demographic here on CR, but at the same time, more and more I find that people looking to go beyond their first zoom lens are looking for either an affordable prime with a max aperture larger than f/2.0, or for a macro prime. people always whine and moan (to put it gently) that as a populace we are churning out more photography but less great work every day, but look at it this way: the more people that get into photography, for better or worse, the more likely our pet lens projects are going to get approved and funded by Canon HQ.

4. The CR Most Wanted

I think most of these are giveaways but everyone will still be interested to know how it panned out. I grouped certain lenses somewhat (for example there was a request for a 24-70 f/2.0 L IS, and a request for a 24-70 f/2.8 L II, I rolled these into the 24-70 f/2.8 L IS number), and here we go:

nothing terribly surprising here, and the winner is somewhat inconclusive, based on whether or not you decide to group things differently. what is clear, is that Canon's breadwinners have not really changed. what's more surprising is that the feeling that there's still a strong need for a 100-400 replacement despite the 70-300 and 200-400 announcements. the conclusion I drew is that, if I were in Canon marketing, I'd be very excited. not only are you going to be able to sell plenty of 70-300s and 200-400s (based on initial reactions), but when you do come back around to slotting a 100-400 replacement in between the two, you'll have plenty of takers still.

lots of demand for the 50's to be replaced, personally I think that's next once Canon has finished cranking out this round of Big Whites. I'm also optimistic about a 24-70 replacement coming in the next two years. it seems that Canon is rolling through their breadwinning core and cranking out some fun/bizarre/awesome lenses on the side as they go along. with the 70-200 f/2.8 II out, and the 300, 400, 500 and 600 being replaced, clearly the 50s and 24-70 (and maybe 24-105) are next.

5. Budget lineup updates

There are a number of us looking for refreshes of the cheap wide (20-35mm range) EF primes, and a number of us looking for refreshes of the cheap EF L telephoto primes (basically, a replacement for the 400 f/5.6 L). How likely is that to happen? For the cheap EF primes, there were a total of 15 votes (13%). that's about the size of the demand for the EF-S-specific lenses. so we may see one or two drop over the next few years but I'd be very surprised to see a thorough refresh, once it's looked at in this light.

as far as a replacement for the 400 f/5.6 L goes, people have proposed a 400 f/5.6 L IS, 500 f/5.6 L IS, and/or a 600 f/5.6 L IS. I think we'd be pretty happy to see any one of these drop. so, grouping these votes together, there are 7 votes (6%) for a replacement for the little-but-sharp-as-heck 400. that's actually not a bad level of demand for a single lens (remember the 24-70 replacement garnered 9 votes). maybe we'll see this one get refreshed in the next 2 years.

That's it from me, folks, feel free to download the PDF and draw your own conclusions; share them here and let us know what trends you see coming from Canon based on market demands. Thanks for reading!

even if L glass sells on a 1:1 ratio against EF-S lenses in the real world, I think that's reason enough for Canon to churn out L glass -- feel free to correct me (and there may be no way to prove this) but I believe Canon makes a much better ROI number off a 400mm f/2.8 L IS than off of an EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS

I sincerely doubt L lenses come even close to a 1:1 ratio to EF-S lenses in the real world. While it's certainly true that it takes a lot of EF-S 18-55mm lenses as kits to make up one EF 600mm f/4L IS II lens (~140, in this case!), I'd bet that Canon sells a few thousand Rebel kits for every supertele that they sell. I think Canon makes a lot more profit from the EF-S kit lenses and their close cousins (55-250, 50/1.8 II, etc.) than from their L lenses, and likewise, I suspect the R&D effort to produce an L lens is greater than that for an EF-S lens.

Keep in mind the figure (and I hesitate to call it a fact, but it does seem reasonable) that 70-80% of Canon lenses are produced in Taiwan. That means more than 70% of lenses Canon makes comprise the EF-S 18-55mm, EF-S 55-250mm, EF 50mm f/1.8 II, and EF 75-300mm's. I'd venture a guess that the margin on L lenses is higher, but like the Rebel bodies, the >$300 lenses are the core of Canon's dSLR business. The high end gear (L lenses and xD bodies) don't generate the same level of profit...at least direct profit. But, the Canon gear in the hands of pros - at sporting events, shooting your wedding or portraits, etc., that's advertising for Canon. That leads to stronger consumer sales or Rebels and EF-S lenses, which in turn funds the next round of R&D for xD bodies and L lenses.

Keep in mind the figure (and I hesitate to call it a fact, but it does seem reasonable) that 70-80% of Canon lenses are produced in Taiwan. That means more than 70% of lenses Canon makes comprise the EF-S 18-55mm, EF-S 55-250mm, EF 50mm f/1.8 II, and EF 75-300mm's. I'd venture a guess that the margin on L lenses is higher, but like the Rebel bodies, the >$300 lenses are the core of Canon's dSLR business. The high end gear (L lenses and xD bodies) don't generate the same level of profit...at least direct profit. But, the Canon gear in the hands of pros - at sporting events, shooting your wedding or portraits, etc., that's advertising for Canon. That leads to stronger consumer sales or Rebels and EF-S lenses, which in turn funds the next round of R&D for xD bodies and L lenses.

+1

The DSLR Camera, Lens, and Accessory value to Canon continues to grow, In their latest Financial Report, the consumer FY 2011 projection is for 23% of their volume on a unit basis to be DSLR, lenses and accessories, and in income value, 69%.

I agree with Neuro and would add my own two cents worth. First, it's pretty hard to draw any conclusions when the total number of votes separating the #1 choice from last place is only five votes.

A few comments on EF-S lenses. Keep in mind that there is already a tremendous amount of redundancy in the EF-S line. Two-thirds of the entire line significantly overlaps. Photographers already have lots of choices in this line so, it's not surprising that there isn't a big demand for a "new" EF-S lens.

Plus, EF-S lenses concentrate at the wide-angle end of the focal length spectrum. Beyond wide-angle lenses, it's easy to substitute a full-frame lens for an EF-S lens. Is a 70-300 mm lens a full-frame lens or is it an EF-S lens? It depends on the camera it's on.

Finally, Canon has (In My Opinion) not done a really good job of producing enthusiast, prosumer or professional quality lenses in the EF-S format. That seems to be gradually changing and I expect it to change more as the 7D and 60D market expands and as Canon reacts to the more aggressive development of quality APS-C lenses by Sigma, Tamron and Tokina.

I did find Scale's chart very interesting. It's worth letting the numbers sink in: DSLRs account for less than a quarter of all cameras sold but represent more than two-thirds of the value of camera sales. I found that very reassuring because I sometimes worry that the DSLR market could be shrinking in relation to the Point and Shoots. Clearly Canon has a real incentive to invest in and grow their DSLR products.

IMHO, two of these lenses are almost certainly going to happen in the next couple of years, these are:

EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS USMEF 35mm f/1.4 L II USM

I don't think I'm being controversial there. Three others are 'maybe's:

EF 100-400mm f/4-5.6 L IS II USM (depending on how successful the strategy to split the market between the the 70-300L and 200-400L is) EF 135mm f/1.8 L IS USM (is IS possible on such a fast aperture FF lens? How many would pay the premium over the existing version?)EF 50mm f/1.2 L II USM (current version is still a bit new for a prime)

I don't think that we'll see three of the other suggestions: when was the last time that Canon released a non-L EF prime (100mm Macro f/2.8 USM in 2000, unless anyone name a more recent example)? Come to think of it, when was the last time Canon released a non-L EF zoom (70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM in 2005, ditto above caveat)?

EF 50mm f/1.4 II USMEF 35mm f/1.4 L II USM EF 28mm f/1.8 II USM

It does seem that from now on it will be either L-grade EF lenses, EF-S lenses or live with the back catalogue.

Unfocused thinks that the problem is EF-S zoom lens overlap, I disagree. There were plenty of overlaps in the low to mid market EF film era lenses -the market for them was big enough; EF-S lenses are the modern equivalent of these. The real problem with the EF-S line-up is the lack of specialist lenses and gaps in the primes that can only be filled with old, sub-par EF primes, or with expensive and heavy L glass. The trap that Canon (as well as Nikon and, to a lesser extent, Sony) is caught in, is that the people who would be in the market for the more expensive EF-S offerings, are also the people who believe that they may soon want to go full frame.

Finally, does the high demand for a new EF 35mm and EF 28mm mean that there is a demand for a small, light and inexpensive wide angle for full frame? Or can it be lumped together with those who are asking for a EF-S 30mm f/1.4 Macro (!) USM (surely a bit of a conflicting set of requirements) to show the desire for a fast prime that is 'normal' on APS-C (perhaps with the potential to be the former, if the owner ever decides to move to full frame)?

Keep in mind the figure (and I hesitate to call it a fact, but it does seem reasonable) that 70-80% of Canon lenses are produced in Taiwan. That means more than 70% of lenses Canon makes comprise the EF-S 18-55mm, EF-S 55-250mm, EF 50mm f/1.8 II, and EF 75-300mm's. I'd venture a guess that the margin on L lenses is higher, but like the Rebel bodies, the >$300 lenses are the core of Canon's dSLR business. The high end gear (L lenses and xD bodies) don't generate the same level of profit...at least direct profit. But, the Canon gear in the hands of pros - at sporting events, shooting your wedding or portraits, etc., that's advertising for Canon. That leads to stronger consumer sales or Rebels and EF-S lenses, which in turn funds the next round of R&D for xD bodies and L lenses.

Just in case anyone's interested, here is another article from digitimes (in English) about that lens supplier... though it doesn't use the same figures, it does give you an idea of the numbers. My...

Plus, EF-S lenses concentrate at the wide-angle end of the focal length spectrum. Beyond wide-angle lenses, it's easy to substitute a full-frame lens for an EF-S lens. Is a 70-300 mm lens a full-frame lens or is it an EF-S lens? It depends on the camera it's on.

I was going to say that but there it is already.

I think the relative lack of interest in EF-S lenses is that most of it is well covered already. You have cheap zooms, wide and tele, and less cheap standard zooms too. What gaps are there? I think some cheap EF-S primes will help keep up with Sony and Nikon e.g. 30/35mm f/1.8 and a 8-16 would keep up with Sigma. On the long end, you can go EF lens easily.

According to the article, the Canon executives confirmed the following:

1. EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II is in development2. No plans for mirrorless bodies for now3. No plans for 3D consumer-level products for now4. Plans to develop specific lens for EOS Movie (these lenses will probably be very expensive)5. Pick up speed from 7-8 lens a year to 10 lens a year

There's also some figures they've mentioned, including that Canon claims 9 out of the world's top 20 best selling point and shoot cameras in 2010...

EF 135mm f/1.8 L IS USM (is IS possible on such a fast aperture FF lens? How many would pay the premium over the existing version?)

Well, there is the 200/2IS, that third of a stop shouldn't be an insurmountable problem. The premium is an other story. Between the 70-200/2,8ISII and the 135/2 neither IS nor the marginally faster aperture would make it a mandatory upgrade.

It's clear to see why Canon spends far more effort in designing EF lenses. out of 113 votes for lens requests, only 14 were for APS-C only lenses. that's a meager 12%, and I do think this statistic is telling. the people who are going to be puchasing and owning multiple lenses tend to be those who take photography seriously. if you're taking your photography seriously, you're likely to want to invest in better gear (quality over quantity). if you want the best quality, it looks like people still go to the EF lineup for it.

2. L glass

By comparison, 71 requests were for what would presumably be designated "L" glass, a huge 63%. Why would Canon be investing major effort in low-margin EF-S glass if they can be selling 5 times as much of the big...

Nice post. However, I think it's worth bearing in mind that both these stats largely reflect the readership of this forum, particularly those who would respond to posts and have the knowledge and experience to come up with a wishlist. In fact, I wonder what percentage of DSLR owners regularly read up on forums?

However, I think it's worth bearing in mind that both these stats largely reflect the readership of this forum, particularly those who would respond to posts and have the knowledge and experience to come up with a wishlist. In fact, I wonder what percentage of DSLR owners regularly read up on forums?

Let's make a poll and check: How many of you DSLR owners are reading this forum?

Most user stay with the kit lens(es). Figures in the range of 1,5 or so lenses per body are floating around.

Yes, people interested in high end lenses are a minority, but so are people who would buy a separate lens in the first place. Those kit lenses are good enough for everyday use.

If you have the need for a better lens, your either a rather conscious shooter or simply a gearhead. The first group is better of with a FF camera and a quality zoom then a collection of EF-s primes. And thats also the way to make full use of those expensive f/1.4 lenses. OTOH a 35/1,8 could fill the role of a gateway drug.